Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

Those who think that ROKA is outnumbered is looking at the wrong numbers...

...I don't need to go into the logistical and technological differences, do I?

No, but you do need to read the post I was responding to. KYF was pushing for a unilateral push on NK by SK alone (which would never happen), which will virtually guarantee Chinese involvement, meaning it will end badly for SK. Again, this is an unrealistic scenario, but that's what was presented.

However, even with a realistic scenario (which will involve the US and most likely China), my point of it being a pyrrhic victory still stands - there is little chance that SK will come out of it unscathed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KiraYamatoFan

In fact, I would grab a rifle and put most of that scum out of their misery if I receive orders tomorrow. That kind of regime has no viable reason to exist and only deserves to be torn to shreds by all means.

well, guess the only thing you're missing is to convince the rest of SK that your idea is a good one, best get going.

Quote:

Most of those North Korean reserves are sitting ducks for tactical strikes and even the most devoted bunch would not hold its ground mentally when deprived of sleep, food, and quality equipment to some extent.

May want to ask the Germans how Stalingrad went.

Something to think about for those that are advocating for a round 2 of the Korean War:

- Do you know what happened last time? this time the other side has nukes.
- What was the last war you fought in? which war zone have you had to live through?

Might the the situation that changes the legal ruling of drones and what the governemnt can and cannot do on US soil to US Citizens. Even at the border.

""the man whom the administration has put up to head the CIA would not say
whether or not the president of the United States has the power to order the
extrajudicial killing of a United States citizen within the borders of the United
States")."

However, even with a realistic scenario (which will involve the US and most likely China), my point of it being a pyrrhic victory still stands - there is little chance that SK will come out of it unscathed.

They'd come out of it with millions of starving, uneducated North Koreans. That's the big problem here, not whatever Zerg rush you envision.

No, but you do need to read the post I was responding to. KYF was pushing for a unilateral push on NK by SK alone (which would never happen), which will virtually guarantee Chinese involvement, meaning it will end badly for SK. Again, this is an unrealistic scenario, but that's what was presented.

However, even with a realistic scenario (which will involve the US and most likely China), my point of it being a pyrrhic victory still stands - there is little chance that SK will come out of it unscathed.

Finding an agreement between the US and China isn't impossible considering it has been done before for Yugoslavia between the US and Russia (which had ties with Milosevic) during the Kosovo War.

Quote:

May want to ask the Germans how Stalingrad went.

Something to think about for those that are advocating for a round 2 of the Korean War:

- Do you know what happened last time? this time the other side has nukes.

May want to ask the Iraqis how things went from the moment Desert Storm kicked in (despite all the WMDs they still had at the time - 1991), or ask the Egyptians how it went in 1967 despite their superior numbers & Soviet-made hardware advantage over the IDF (which was outnumbered by 5 to 1). In the case of Iraq, they could be as devoted or brainwashed as they were, but it didn't stop them from abandoning their posts from the moment the strikes were well coordinated combined to other existing deprivations.

Things have changed since 1953 and SK has plenty of countermeasures to stop anything launched at them or even destroy the launching sites before they can even be ready to react.

Seriously, you can me an idealist or a lunatic if you want, but there's no way this regime should be allowed to breathe and go unpunished with the consistent blackmailing.

____________________________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyuu

Like... Equestrian. Horse dancing? Really? Are you kidding me?

That's one discipline on which I keep hoping the IOC to take it away instead of wrestling. Sometimes, I'm baffled by the decisions at the IOC.

""the man whom the administration has put up to head the CIA would not say
whether or not the president of the United States has the power to order the
extrajudicial killing of a United States citizen within the borders of the United
States")."

He certainly has the "power" - the problem is it undercuts nearly nine hundred years of jurisprudence (see Magna Carta) that Anglo-American law relies on over and above the constitutional issues.

Are the two political parties really unable to comprehend the ramifications of diluting the rule-of-law that badly? I was concerned about this consequence the instant the Bush administration decided to treat terrorists like military warriors instead of criminals. The reverse was inevitable -- suddenly mere criminals were destined to be labeled terrorists and no due process was necessary.

Finding an agreement between the US and China isn't impossible considering it has been done before for Yugoslavia between the US and Russia (which had ties with Milosevic) during the Kosovo War.

NK is a buffer state that borders China itself, Yugoslavia on the other hand served no such purpose for Russia. You'd have about as good a chance of convincing China to concede NK to the US sphere of influence as you would convincing Russia to give up the Caucasus.

Quote:

May want to ask the Iraqis how things went from the moment Desert Storm kicked in (despite all the WMDs they still had at the time - 1991), or ask the Egyptians how it went in 1967 despite their superior numbers & Soviet-made hardware advantage over the IDF (which was outnumbered by 5 to 1). In the case of Iraq, they could be as devoted or brainwashed as they were, but it didn't stop them from abandoning their posts from the moment the strikes were well coordinated combined to other deprivations.

First things first - SK is no US, not even remotely close. Replace the Coalition forces with the SK military in the Gulf War, and there would be a very different flag flying in Kuwait today. Second, if Iraq is what you'd consider to be a success story, well, you shouldn't - that place really hasn't held up very well, and I'm speaking from personal experience here.

Well, obviously he's had a lot of time to plan, and he certainly looks like (unfortunately) he was an officer that knew his stuff.

Quote:

Seriously, you can me an idealist if you want, but there's no way this regime should be allowed to breathe and go unpunished with the consistent blackmailing.

I'm no fan of the NK regime, but IMO you do have a rather idealistic outlook on military operations and their repercussions. There is a reason why war should be the last resort, not something you jump to just because you're pissed off at the other side.

He certainly has the "power" - the problem is it undercuts nearly nine hundred years of jurisprudence (see Magna Carta) that Anglo-American law relies on over and above the constitutional issues.

Are the two political parties really unable to comprehend the ramifications of diluting the rule-of-law that badly? I was concerned about this consequence the instant the Bush administration decided to treat terrorists like military warriors instead of criminals. The reverse was inevitable -- suddenly mere criminals were destined to be labeled terrorists and no due process was necessary.

There was a movie about something like this in the early 1930s. I believe it was called "Gabrial Over the White House".

It was seen as what people like William Randolph Hearst wanted FDR to do once in office in 1933.

NK is a buffer state that borders China itself, Yugoslavia on the other hand served no such purpose for Russia. You'd have about as good a chance of convincing China to concede NK to the US sphere of influence as you would convincing Russia to give up the Caucasus.

I don't think I ever said that. I only said that the big fat walrus and his friends have to be kicked out for everyone's good (including China's). And besides, Serbians still kept their ties with Moscow with a new government after Kosovo.

Quote:

First things first - SK is no US, not even remotely close. Replace the Coalition forces with the SK military in the Gulf War, and there would be a very different flag flying in Kuwait today. Second, if Iraq is what you'd consider to be a success story, well, you shouldn't - that place really hasn't held up very well, and I'm speaking from personal experience here.

Please read my second example about the Six Days War. About Iraq, I was only touching aspects of the First Gulf War (not the Second) when mentioning about how consistent tactical strikes ended up having their toll, even for an army trained with Soviet tactics at the time.

edit: what would happen in North Korea WITHOUT the Kims? Anarchy? I don't think we're even remotely close to that.

Quote:

I'm no fan of the NK regime, but IMO you do have a rather idealistic outlook on military operations and their repercussions. There is a reason why war should be the last resort, not something you jump to just because you're pissed off at the other side.

The NK regime had 60 years (!!!) to try applying their ideals, they failed. SK expanded itself into a major economics power while NK kept impoverishing themselves. There was more than enough time for them to think what's best for the country, and yet they were not able to do that. After all this time, I don't think there's any option left when everything NK does is now a threat to SK's national security, as well as for the entire region's national security. If you ask me, we are at last resort. It's sad, but things are coming down to this.

I don't think I ever said that. I only said that the big fat walrus and his friends have to be kicked out for everyone's good (including China's). And besides, Serbians still kept their ties with Moscow with a new government after Kosovo.

I'd say a far better reason would be for the sake of the oppressed that actually lives in NK. That said, China couldn't care less as long as the NK regime isn't too crazy, it's goal isn't a prosperous NK state, it doesn't want a state with ties to Beijin - it wants a buffer state that's completely within its sphere of influence.

Quote:

Please read my second example about the Six Days War. About Iraq, I was only touching aspects of the First Gulf War (not the Second) when mentioning about how consistent tactical strikes ended up having their toll, even for an army trained with Soviet tactics at the time.

The Six Days "War" cannot be compared to a full-scale military conflict as another war on the Korean peninsula would be, and again, SK does not have the capability of the US military in conducting tactical strikes - and it'd have to be one hell of a preemptive assault if you don't want to end up with a flattened Seoul.

Remember, the Gulf War was fought almost entirely within enemy borders, a renewed Korean war would take place in both with instant devastation.

Quote:

edit: what would happen in North Korea WITHOUT the Kims? Anarchy? I don't think we're even remotely close to that.

probably a military junta in the veins of Myanmar

Quote:

The NK regime had 60 years (!!!) to try applying their ideals, they failed. SK expanded itself into a major economics power while NK kept impoverishing themselves. There was more than enough time for them to think what's best for the country, and yet they were not able to do that. After all this time, I don't think there's any option left when everything NK does is now a threat to SK's national security, as well as for the entire region's national security. If you ask me, we are at last resort.

Sorry, frankly I don't really care. If it's that threatening then the South Koreans should do something about it, and so far they obviously don't think a full-out war is a good idea, probably because they are the ones that would have to suffer in it.

Besides, if just being a threat to someone else is enough, we would also have to declare war on Iran and probably half of Africa.

Last time there was a full on war in Korean the lines went from one end of the Pennisula to the other a few times before settling of what was roughly the original border. A war the lasted from 1950-1953.

And that was using mostly later World War II equipment with a splach of newer planes and tanks designed after the war. The US had the bomb at that time, but did not use it (the Soviets had one as well by then even if it was mostly Chinese forces helping Korea rather than Soviet forces).

Indeed. Removing Kim is simply to remove the Snake's tongue. To truly decapitate it the Generals have to be eliminated at the same time.

However, if the leadership is eliminated, I think NK would collapse quite quickly. It is heavily centralized (far more then, say, China), and from what I can see, the chain of command would break down without the centre.

I don't get why it's wrestling getting the chop, and not one of the equestrian events. Those equestrian events don't really fit the Olympian "Ideal", and I don't believe any equestrian events were featured in the original ancient Olympics (unlike Wrestling).